Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Wednesday, 11 May 2005

... Czech, Hungarian or Maltese, but it's made its way into all the other official languages of the European Union. The IPKat is of course referring to Case T-31/03Grupo Sado SA v OHIM, Sadia SA. It looks to him like a "likelihood of confusion" opposition. The applicant's mark is on the left and the opponent's is on the right.

.

Both parties deal in goods and services in Classes 29, 31 and 35.

Flaunting his fluent command of Latvian, the IPKat can tell you that the court first decided to "prasību noraidīt"; then, to be on the safe side, it also "prasītāja atlīdzina tiesāšanās izdevumus". Merpel says "Who are you kidding, fat cat? All you can speak is English and Purr-sian. But if the Curia website won't give us the ruling in English, perhaps some kind Latvian (or Greek or Portuguese) would be so kind as to explain ..."

KittyIt's an opposition case. As you can imagine, appeal on the basis that the marks were not similar and that the BoA didn't take into account the meaning of the mark in Portuguese and the effect of the word GRUPO.

CFI said that meaning in Portuguese (meaning 'health') not relevant as had to consider the average Spaniard, who wouldn't necessarily understand themeaning. Also found that the word GRUPO had very little effect and that SADA/SADIA were similar phonetically and visually. Given the identity of the goods, there was a likelihood of confusion. Hope this helps.

A probably sloppy translation, from the Dutch version,of the more important considerations of the Court.

54. Moreover it is plausible that the consumer will not remember the term "grupo". The consumer will take this term exclusively generic, i.e. as a term that indicates a group of companies. The consumer therefore will not remember the term "grupo" as principal component of the requested mark and as a component that indicates the origin of the goods and services.

57 The graphic component of the requested mark indeed draws attention through its size, but this graphic reproduction is hard to remember and will, consequently, not dominate the impression of the requested mark left behind in the memory of relevant public.

69 Considering the fact that the marks indicated by the conflicting marks are identical, as well as that the dominant component of the requested mark is visually and phonetically similar to the older mark, the global impression made by the conflicting marks will cause the relevant public to think that the goods identified with the marks originate of the same venture, at least of economically linked ventures.

Apart from that, the component "grupo" of the requested mark, which indicates a group of companies, can, although it is not dominant, nevertheless create the impression of an association of the companies concerned, in the form of a "group" of companies, and can therewith increase the danger of confusion between the conflicting marks.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!